Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[Elric]

True, it will happen anyway, even as it is already, but perhaps you would grant me that, if we radically re-defined the word marriage in law to include “gay-marriage”, that it is reasonable to presume that this would have an encouraging effect on the practice of conceiving children who will likely never know or be raised by their biological parents (a right none of us should be deliberately denied), and result in more children having to deal with living out this handicapping situation in life, without their consent of course, but more importantly by the deliberate design of their parents and enabled by the law of the State.

No, I would not grant you that. But I would suggest that this is an over reaction to the idea of gay marriage.

 

[Elric]

Well there are all kinds of arrangements that might work out.

Hold up. There is no might about it, they do work. From what I have seen, at times they seem to work better than marriage does.

But when you phrase it as you did here, it makes it sound like you couldn’t care less whether they start out disadvantaged from the get-go or not.

Disadvantaged?

What disadvantage?

 

[KarenNC]

Your logic as well as most homosexual apologist is based on two flawed ideas.
One - that if hetersexuals cannot prove to do it right 100 percent of the time then we should allow homosexuals the chance to screw the world up too.

An additional point.

I do not consider myself a “homosexual apologist” but rather someone who is interested in social justice for all. This thread happens to be about issues related to homosexuality.

It’s not about 100%, it’s about equal access to benefits and responsibilities as citizens of the US.

Should, for instance, women not have been allowed to vote because “they might screw up the world”? After all, women had historically not been allowed to vote, they are the “weaker sex” and subject to being duped, they are irrational, they can have all the influence they should ever want or need by teaching their children, men know better what women need, most of them don’t want to vote, it’s dangerous to change a system that works, etc.

history.rochester.edu/class/suffrage/Anti.html
learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=1646
history.rochester.edu/class/suffrage/Ant-oth.html

 

[RyanL]

Karen,

I’d like to try a different approach, if you’ll kindly indulge me.

I want to make sure I understand your argument, so I would appreciate if you correct what I’ve written below and state whether you would agree or disagree with any new arguments I’m bringing in support of State recognition of same sex couples. If I’ve done my job correctly, the arguments presented here in favor of legal recognition of same sex couples will be stronger and more numerous than the reasons you’ve asserted in the course of this thread, while cogently and concisely summarizing those points you’ve already presented.

Objection1: Under American law, equal protection as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (and elsewhere) holds that the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Same sex couples are in a similar condition or circumstance as their heterosexual counterparts regarding both love and monogamous sexual activity, and are therefore to be afforded the same manner of legal protection.

Objection2: Even if true (which it is vigorously asserted that it is not), adverse effects on children brought up in same sex households would not be sufficient to categorically bar State recognition of same sex couples, since heterosexual drunkards and abusers (even convicted sex offenders!) are permitted to marry, and studies have conclusively shown that their parentage has an adverse effect on children.

Objection3: The inherent sterility of same sex couples does not affect the State’s interest, as other sterile couples are permitted marriage. Moreover, current technological advances (IVF, surrogate pregnancies, etc.) make it possible for otherwise sterile couples to bring forth children. For both of these reasons, same sex couples are sufficiently similarly situated so as to warrant the equal protection of Objection1.

Objection4: The State has an interest in minimizing promiscuity, as it lowers the likelihood of epidemiological risks. By incentivizing marriage, the State incentivizes a lower promiscuity rate in the homosexual community, and this is a legitimate State interest sufficient to afford legal recognition of same sex couples.

Objection5: The State has an interest in strengthening the institution of marriage as a whole, and State recognition of same sex couples works to that end by rewarding those couples who demonstrate a commitment to relational longevity. To the extent that such same sex couples exist, the overall institution of marriage is strengthened.

Objection6: The State has an interest in financing end-of-life care, which can be exceedingly costly. By legally recognizing same sex couples, the State shifts that financial burden from itself (i.e., other tax-payers) and to the other member of the couple, who (not surprisingly) would provide qualitatively better care than the State. Therefore, the State has a compelling interest in legally recognizing same sex couples.

Objection7: The State has an interest in forming stable (financial and otherwise) families for children, as numerous studies have found that children develop best in stable families. To the extent that a same sex couple exists with children in the household, the same sex couple should, for the sake of the children, be recognized by the State as a legal couple.

I think that about covers it. Would you please correct me?

If no corrections are needed, I think it would be helpful if you were to do the same role-reversal for me in return – if one or the other of us fundamentally misunderstands the other’s arguments, we’re simply talking past each other and any further involvement here is rather pointless.

Thanks in advance for the consideration.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Thanks, Ryan, but I was answering the definition of “natural law” (note the lowercase letters) that aganbern was using in the quote to which I replied. He specifically applied it to birds and animals and said that if they don’t it, we should not either.

Nonetheless, it might be worthwhile to listen – if you want to know what Catholics (and other legal theorists) believe about the Natural Law, it’s a rather helpful lecture.

If you don’t want to know what Catholics (and other legal theorists) believe about the Natural Law, I wish you the best of luck finding a rational justification for any human rights – the best that’s been done so far is Legal Positivism, and that’s a pretty shoddy justification.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[KarenNC]

Nonetheless, it might be worthwhile to listen – if you want to know what Catholics (and other legal theorists) believe about the Natural Law, it’s a rather helpful lecture.

If you don’t want to know what Catholics (and other legal theorists) believe about the Natural Law, I wish you the best of luck finding a rational justification for any human rights – the best that’s been done so far is Legal Positivism, and that’s a pretty shoddy justification.

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan, I think you are making an erroneous assumption that because I said I specifically answered aganbern’s statement that “since animals don’t do it, we shouldn’t either”, that I am not only unacquainted with but actively uninterested in and contemptuous of the concept of Natural Law as understood by Catholics. The two are simply different questions altogether, as you pointed out. Natural Law as defined by Catholics does not concern itself with whether giraffes, iguanas, chickens or hedgehogs engage in same sex mating activities, so it does not apply to aganbern’s statement, even though he used the words “natural law”. I presumed from that and the statements associated with it that it was not the Catholic idea of Natural Law that was being discussed.

That is what I meant when I said that I was answering aganbern’s specific statement, and why I used lowercase letters when referring to natural law as s/he had used the term. It is rather like my using a capital “O” when I mean the Orthodox Christian or Orthodox Jewish religion as a whole vs. lowercase “o” when I mean the term “orthodox” in general, or “C” for the entire body of the Catholic Church vs. “c” when I mean a specific building.

I will get back to your longer question when I have a bit more time.

 

[Nandarani]

I never did understand why non-religous people (homosexual or not) would want to get married.

I just want you to know your reply made me laugh outloud…thank you! .:bowdown2:

 

[Nandarani]

Wow. In reading through this thread I’ve seen some of the sorriest arguments I’ve seen in a long time. Eesh. I’ve seen kids do better.

Ok. Here are some basics:

1. The government’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with “recognizing a loving relationship”. I’m not about to fork over my tax dollars because some couple has warm fuzzies for each other - straight or otherwise. Love is irrelevant to the state’s interest. Having an emotion is (1) not a sound basis for a lasting relationship (what happens when you don’t feel it anymore?!?) and (2) no source of entitlement to ride the Social Security train. Something more is needed.
2. Heterosexual marriage in this country has problems, true (high divorce rates, spousal abuse, etc.) – but that doesn’t mean the answer is to further exacerbate the problems by making marriage some amorphous and nebulous concept which means whatever-the-heck we say it means. Either words have meaning or they’re meaningless. Pick a side.
3. Stare decisis (that favorite term of democrats everywhere) says don’t change precedent without a compelling reason. The state has no compelling interest to protect whatever it is LGBT folks want do in their bedrooms. Whatever it may be, it doesn’t (and can’t) make babies.
4. There’s no presumption that artificial insemination is a good way to go. In fact, I (and many others) would assert that it’s not. I would argue that this (i.e., invalid premises) makes any argument resting on the moral acceptance of artificial insemination invalid.
5. Here’s the facts, jax: when a man and a woman have sex, babies are a possible result. Men and women will have sex with each other whether or not the state recognizes marriage, and this sex can (and often does) lead to babies whether or not the state recognizes marriage.

This being the case, the state’s interest isn’t in procreation, *per se – *as stated, procreation will happen regardless. Rather, the state’s interest is in making sure that procreation happens in the most stable environment possible for any children resultant – namely, a life-long, monogomous relationship of the parents. To do that, the state recognizes (and incentivizes with special rights and programs) heterosexual marriage. The more sex between men and women is restricted to marriage, the better it is for the state; kids who result from their “baby making activity” are born into stable households, and this makes for better citizens in the next generation (insert gazillions of studies here).

Enter same sex relationships, stage left. Again, what’s the state’s interest in marriage? It’s not about “recognizing a loving relationship” (as brothers and sisters love each other as well). It’s about making sure that “baby making activity” happens in the most responsible manner possible. Can same sex couples engage in “baby making activity”? No. So where’s the government interest?!?

Now…the rejoinder may be that we allow infertile couples to marry and so this invalidates the argument. I would say that’s a cute attempt at logic, but wrong. Even infertile couples can engage in sexual intercourse, i.e., baby making activity, even if babies don’t result. They’re still engaging in the type of activity which makes babies, and the government’s interest is in ensuring that this occurs in the most responsible way. Second, even “infertile” couples occasionally conceive. Third, making couples take a fertility test would violate the Democrat-beloved Constitutional right to privacy. Fourth, the law favors bright line rules, and one man / one woman is a pretty bright line.

Ok. Please resume the bickering.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
For those so inclined, there’s some interesting reading here focusing on secular justifications for banning same sex marriages I haven’t mentioned. It’s the tip of the iceberg.

just wanted to say this to me is a good mix of qualities on this topic.

 

[Nandarani]

Do you have any data that support this?

what Urban Hermit says is, using a different kind of intelligence, possibly intuitively correct, imho.

 

[blessedtoo]

Absolutely agree. I see only benefit in expecting same sex couples to adhere to those obligations in exactly the same manner that we expect heterosexual couples to do so.

Quite true. And our society has found a benefit in allowing civil marriage even to those couples who do not or cannot have children together. If we do not impose mandatory childbearing as a requirement to allow marriage for heterosexuals, why would we require it for homosexuals?

Legal civil marriage for same sex couples would not prevent any heterosexual couple from having as many children as they desire.

Karen, you did not address the most significant elements of the argument . Here, I will repost:

A social institution is not a “bundle of rights”, but a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs.

What social need does ssm meet?

Here, I’ll remind you of the social need that the institution of marriage meets:

An institution that exists everywhere on the planet is obviously meeting at least one primary, cross-cultural human need. If human beings were not sexually embodied creatures who reproduce and give birth to helpless, socially needy offspring who remain immature for long periods of time and depend on the love and support of both parents who brought them into existence, the world would have no need for the institution of marriage.

 

[urban-hermit]

Hi Karen - … ok, first you said:

To me, for instance, it boils down to an issue of equal treatment under the law, and by that I mean the United States law.

Then I said:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is quite clear that marriage is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Then you said:

Laws regulate social interaction, not biology. Marriage is a social construct, not biology. Biology does not require monogamy. Biology does not require marriage at all.

Biology requires that the male provide the sperm … Biology requires that the female bear the child …

Biology also does not require that every individual reproduce nor that every possible sexual act result in pregnancy. The biology of humans does not require that we only mate at the optimal time and in the optimal way for conception and only then.

Which - unless I’m missing something - doesn’t answer my question:

“Can you help me see where there is not “equal treatment under the law” ?”

It’s almost like you took the word “biology” and just went berserk on it. I didn’t ask “is biology fair?” Or “do the dictates of biology jive with how you think sex should happen?” Or “why should I have to register with selective service and my girlfriend does not?” I simply asked where, legally, is the problem?

If marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, then in a legal sense it isn’t possible for 2 women to get married, just as it isn’t legally possible for a man to be named as the mother of a child on the child’s birth certificate, no matter how “motherly” he might be feeling.

 

[urban-hermit]

I think the 2ND-BEST non-religious argument against radically re-defining the word marriage to include “gay marriage” is that it will discourage future generations from even getting married by lowering the status of marriage and watering down its meaning.

Do you have any data that support this?

“Data” is probably the wrong word, since you cannot empirically demonstrate a future event.

When birth control came into widespread use in the 60’s a lot of “data” was presented by its proponents to predict that it would make families happier by removing the pressures of childbearing. That didn’t quite happen as planned.

However, I believe it is reasonable to assume that instituting “gay marriage” into law would only have negative effects as far as incentivizing marriage.

This link was already provided by RyanL further back in the thread. It’s good!
www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
→ Scroll to the entry for Tuesday, July 29th, 2003.

 

[urban-hermit]

There are two common ways to distinguish Loving. The first is that marriage is supported by the State only to encourage procreation and stable homes. This justification is difficult to maintain in light of the fact that the State will readily marry even people that are obviously infertile. There is some rationale behind arguing that as a practical matter the State may presume opposite couples may be fertile and that same sex couples are not, but I find that a bit weak.

Well, you may find it a bit weak, but I live in a state with a very liberal supreme court, and they found this argument convincing enough to nix “gay marriage” here in Washington. You sound like a lawyer - there’s a decision for you to read.

In case you don’t get around to reading it, I would sum up the message (which I gathered from reading the excerpts in the newspaper) as, basically, procreation and stable homes are considered more important than the dissatisfaction of gays. Because marriage benefits society in at least one way that “gay marriage” cannot ever possibly do, it is a situation where one essential social good, marriage, has to be elevated over and distinguished from a lesser (and more debatably essential or positive) social good, “gay marriage”.

 

[urban-hermit]

What is the non-religous basis for saying that same sex sexual relationships are immoral?

What is the non-religious basis for saying that ANYTHING is immoral?

im·mor·al
adj.
Contrary to established moral principles.

mor·al
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

+++

We can judge the goodness of an action by the results of that action. For example,

Heterosexual sex produces babies. Homosexual sex does not.

Homosexual sex produces a damaged anus. Heterosexual sex does not.

etc.

 

[Elric]

We can judge the goodness of an action by the results of that action. For example,

Heterosexual sex produces babies. Homosexual sex does not.

It is interesting how you continue with your marriage/babies ideal and the marriage/stable families ideal, yet are unable (or unwilling) to defend them when questions are raised regarding these ideals.

Why?

 

[KarenNC]

“Data” is probably the wrong word, since you cannot empirically demonstrate a future event.

Then I shall rephrase:
What source other than your own personal opinion do you have for making the statement “it will discourage future generations from even getting married by lowering the status of marriage and watering down its meaning”?

When birth control came into widespread use in the 60’s a lot of “data” was presented by its proponents to predict that it would make families happier by removing the pressures of childbearing. That didn’t quite happen as planned.

What is your source of support for that statement? This is not a case of a future event, so I presume that you do indeed have empirical evidence of a) families are less happy now than before the introduction of widespread birth control use and b) that widespread use of birth control was the sole cause for this change ?To clarify terms, by “birth control” I presume you mean the birth control pill primarily as condoms have been available for centuries as has some form of natural family planning (periodic abstinence) as a means of birth control.

However, I believe it is reasonable to assume that instituting “gay marriage” into law would only have negative effects as far as incentivizing marriage.

And I and others believe the opposite. On what basis do you claim that your opinion or belief should carry greater weight than my opinion or belief?

This link was already provided by RyanL further back in the thread. It’s good!

You may have noted that I read and replied to that link.

 

[KarenNC]

What is the non-religious basis for saying that ANYTHING is immoral?

I see no mention of religion in the definitions you provided, but if you believe that morality is solely based in religion, then I am not sure why you choose to introduce it into a discussion on “non-religious arguments”.

Homosexual sex produces a damaged anus. Heterosexual sex does not.

You appear to have a rather limited definition of what constitutes “heterosexual sex”. I can only think of two or three possible physical means of sexual interaction in which same sex couples can engage that opposite sex couples cannot and do not and that is purely from limitations posed by anatomy, not from lack of creativity. The act to which you refer is not one of those two or three.

There is a very wide range of heterosexual activity in which even married people can and do engage.

 

[KarenNC]

what Urban Hermit says is, using a different kind of intelligence, possibly intuitively correct, imho.

That would be the “lacking in objective evidence to support personal opinion” variety of intelligence? Personal opinion is fine as far as it goes, we all have one, but I do not advocate that we base our laws on one person’s personal opinion rather than evidence.

In the early days of our country, people who made the laws “intuited” that Catholics should not be allowed to hold public office because they were not able to be trusted as they “served a foreign prince” and would betray their country at the first opportunity.

Whites sold and held blacks in slavery, cheated and killed indigenous peoples, colonized and subjugated many civilizations around the world because they “intuited” that because the color of the skin and form of civilization were different that they were inferior, in fact not really human and without souls.

Interracial marriage was illegal in this country for centuries because people “intuited” that the color of a person’s skin meant that one was an entirely different species.

Women were not allowed a representative voice in government because men “intuited” that women were physically, mentally and emotionally too weak and fundamentally disordered to be able to make a decision for themselves.

Etc.

They also found many religious arguments from Christianity to justify those intuitions. Funny that others who did not share their intuitions found many religious arguments from Christianity that supported just the opposite. It’s one of the reasons that US law is not based on a particular religious doctrine.

 

[TMC]

Well, you may find it a bit weak, but I live in a state with a very liberal supreme court, and they found this argument convincing enough to nix “gay marriage” here in Washington. You sound like a lawyer - there’s a decision for you to read.

In case you don’t get around to reading it, I would sum up the message (which I gathered from reading the excerpts in the newspaper) as, basically, procreation and stable homes are considered more important than the dissatisfaction of gays. Because marriage benefits society in at least one way that “gay marriage” cannot ever possibly do, it is a situation where one essential social good, marriage, has to be elevated over and distinguished from a lesser (and more debatably essential or positive) social good, “gay marriage”.

Yes, courts are still upholding the old laws using the old legal reasoning. The same was true of the race-based laws. Most people under a certain age are surprised to learn that not only was interracial marriage illegal in many states until 1967, people were arrested and tried for such marriages. That’s 99 years from formal recognition that black people are full-fledged citizens with equal rights to finally squaring the marriage laws with that basic idea. Courts are very slow to change, which is good. The change should come through the legislatures, if possible. But it will be hard to continue to deny same sex marriage based on procreation and stable homes when the state requires neither for heterosexual marriages, and both are possible in homosexual marriages.

This is the beauty of the Federal system. The states that have adopted gay marriage have not experienced any of the terrible results that were predicted. As the years roll on other states will see that and change also. If you take religious objections out of the mix, there is no longer any good argument. The reasons for allowing heterosexual couples special rights and recognition - promoting family stability, promoting monogamy, stable home for children, encouraging home buying, increasing support in old age, and whatever else you can come up with, all apply to homosexual marriages, also.

 

[KarenNC]

“Can you help me see where there is not “equal treatment under the law” ?”

It’s almost like you took the word “biology” and just went berserk on it. I didn’t ask “is biology fair?” Or “do the dictates of biology jive with how you think sex should happen?” Or “why should I have to register with selective service and my girlfriend does not?” I simply asked where, legally, is the problem?

If marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, then in a legal sense it isn’t possible for 2 women to get married, just as it isn’t legally possible for a man to be named as the mother of a child on the child’s birth certificate, no matter how “motherly” he might be feeling.

You left out an important part of your statement:
“The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is quite clear that marriage is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. As such, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are bound by the same simple facts of biology.”

Biology and law are not interchangable. Yes, there are specific biological differences. Changing the law does not change the biology.

“I wrote a law that says that marriage is the union of only one man and one woman which proves that a man and a man cannot get married because they have biological differences.” No, they cannot get married because you wrote a law that said they couldn’t get married. You wrote a law that listed a definition of a word. It is not a matter of biological differences. It is a matter of written law and defnition of terms, which are both mutable.